Orfamay Quest |
The way the FAQ is worded, and the way most people are reading it...you cannot cast it on someone without them and everyone within range knowing you did it.
This is not true. You can't cast a spell without everyone in range knowing that a spell was cast.
I defy you to find wording in the FAQ that localizes the caster.
Sundakan |
When there exists lines of feats to solve the problem of casting while being watched and the feats themselves don't even simply give you that ability for free it's clear that the intention was to have obviously visible signs of spellcasting. It is such a simple and obvious concept that the writers of the CRB didn't even think it merited being mentioned. Ever spell you have ever cast without the feats to hide it or some other ability that stops enemies from seeing you cast has had a manifestation that the enemy can clearly see.
Note that those lines of Feats didn't come out until a couple of weeks after this FAQ was made, so no you can't use them as clear intent from the CRB.
thejeff |
Slyme wrote:The way the FAQ is worded, and the way most people are reading it...you cannot cast it on someone without them and everyone within range knowing you did it.This is not true. You can't cast a spell without everyone in range knowing that a spell was cast.
I defy you to find wording in the FAQ that localizes the caster.
It's not even clear you can't cast a spell without everyone in range knowing a spell was cast.
You certainly can't cast a spell where someone can see it without them knowing a spell was cast - "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".Basically anytime you could use Spellcraft, you know there's a spell being cast, even if you're untrained or can't score high enough to identify it. But it's still not clear what "clearly see" means. In what conditions you can see the spell depends on what you think the manifestation looks like. Does it glow? You can see it in the dark, even if you can't see the caster.
If it's not localized, how big is it, how far away can it be?
That's fine. The idea that the FAQ means that spellcasters are easier to spot seems to have appeared on this message board, not at Paizo's FAQ. I've pointed out several examples of "manifestations" that simply mean that the spell itself is obvious, but not necessarily the caster. I could add to the other manifestations I've already listed the traditional puff of smoke and flash of brimstone that accompany something being conjured into (or out of) existence, or the I Dream of Jeanie boing every time something strange happens....
The "boing" doesn't work. Whatever it is, it needs to be visual, since Spellcraft relies on being able to clearly see the spell. This kills some earlier suggestions as well.
Sundakan |
They really should have gone whole hog if they were going to make this a thing and do it like DSP's Psionics and their Manifestations.
Can be any sense, and all you need to do is OBSERVE the manifestation, rather than specifically see it. Omit the bit where they can be suppressed at will.
Doesn't arbitrarily restrict flavor, and has the same mechanical drawbacks.
Only thing stopping it is their silly errata policy.
Snowlilly |
There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.
There was a 3.0 Forgotten Realms specific feat that allowed a caster to customize the observable manifestation of his spells.
The mechanical benefit was an increased difficulty to spellcraft checks to identify the spell.
The non-mechanical benefit: I could define spell manifestations as my character drawing runes of black fire floating in the air as he cast his spell. Pathfinder not having this feat means I don't need to pay a feat tax to assign thematic properties to my spells. The manifestations are always present, but I get to choose how they manifest without paying extra.
Artwork depicting spellcasting as having a visual manifestation has been consistent from present day all the way back to 1st edition.
Quantum Steve |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.
You just quoted Jason saying that spells in PF have always had some kind of "noticeable element." Even in 3.X, while you couldn't identify a componentless spell, you could still counter it. Logically there must have been some element of the spell that was still noticeable so you could tell a spell was being cast and counter it.
In the FAQ, "Manifestations" are basically described as noticeable elements. The exact nature of these elements are up to the group, but these elements have always been there.
At best the FAQ gives GMs more license than they already had to apply game mechanics to these elements by the examples it gives, but GMs have always had the license to attach game mechanics to fluff, it's called House Rules.
Noted that he then goes to list examples after "such as", and none of those refer to visual manifestations such as glyphs appearing in the air.
The FAQ doesn't refer to floating glyphs either. Some of Paizo's art depicts glyphs, but those are just examples. Wiggling your finger is "an act that clearly shows something" i.e. the act of casting. Wiggling your finger is, by definition, a manifestation.
I do think that in 3.5 you knew when someone was normally casting a spell because casting a spell was common in the typical fantasy setting, but nothing in the rules hinted about giving the location away with all of the components removed
Nothing in the FAQ says anything about giving locations away, either. All the FAQ explains is that you know when someone was normally casting a spell. Things like pinpointing the square a spell was cast in is not discussed in the FAQ
This FAQ isn't a rule change. If the devs go ahead and attach mechanics to the fluff of manifestations, that would be a rule change, but the devs haven't done this yet. All the FAQ does is make clear that you can identify, interrupt with a readied action, counter, take an AoO, and otherwise notice when someone is casting.
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:You just quoted Jason saying that spells in PF have always had some kind of "noticeable element." Even in 3.X, while you couldn't identify a componentless spell, you could still counter it. Logically there must have been some element of the spell that was still noticeable so you could tell a spell was being cast and counter it.There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.
My point was that "manifestations" as a word in the game and an actual thing just like what people are trying to make it to be in the artwork is not the same thing as the examples he gave back then, such as a "change in breathing".
I never said a spell is not noticable at all. That would make no sense.
How could does make sense for me to "It says spell components that you can see, but you can't notice anything?
Obviously I wasn't saying that.
Was what I wrote that hard to understand?<--- Yes, this is a serious question and not sarcasm.
If so I can rewrite it.
wraithstrike |
Steve
I know the artwork does not refer to glyphs. That was an example based on the FAQ.
Also if you had been following the topic which spilled over from another post you would know the artwork is what many are proposing has to happen*. No, I am not saying anyone said it has to look exactly like the artwork. They are saying that even while invisible these manisfestations show up. I didn't feel like rewriting all of the arguments because this has been going on for over a week so I figured any normal posters had been familiar with it.
Click here for more background info
*No, I am not accusing you of anything. It is just me saying this may be why you do not know why I said what I said without going into more detail.
wraithstrike |
Once again for Steve
"This FAQ isn't a rule change. If the devs go ahead and attach mechanics to the fluff of manifestations, that would be a rule change, but the devs haven't done this yet. All the FAQ does is make clear that you can identify, interrupt with a readied action, counter, take an AoO, and otherwise notice when someone is casting."
-----------------------
My reply is really a copy and paste from what you replied to, and that is below
Copy and paste: "It's a rules change depending on how they finalize it."
That means that people are waiting for more clarification, and that clarification will determine if the FAQ is a rules change or not.
You misunderstood a few other things also, but those can be understood if you choose to go to the link I gave you in my above post.
Ravingdork |
Quantum Steve |
Wraith,
I'd been following that other topic, and I understand that a lot of people are drawing from the artwork as to how manifestations are supposed to look. The problem is that those people are attaching game mechanics based on that artwork. Mechanics that aren't reflected in the FAQ, and aren't reflected in the rules.
I even understand the logical leap that the suggested fluff for manifestations should have accompanying mechanics, but the mechanics aren't there. The mechanics that many are suggesting contradict the FAQ, contradict the rules, and substantially change the way the game is played.
It seems to me that most of the confusion that many are suffering stems from the unsupported assumption of a change in game mechanics. If one divorces oneself from those assumptions, and considers only the text of the FAQ, which simply clarifies mechanics for noticing spellcasting that have always existed, most of the problems with invisible spellcasters go away.
In short, the FAQ isn't a rule change. The FAQ is unclear as to how it effects the game mechanics only because it doesn't effect them at all.
thejeff |
Wraith,
I'd been following that other topic, and I understand that a lot of people are drawing from the artwork as to how manifestations are supposed to look. The problem is that those people are attaching game mechanics based on that artwork. Mechanics that aren't reflected in the FAQ, and aren't reflected in the rules.
I even understand the logical leap that the suggested fluff for manifestations should have accompanying mechanics, but the mechanics aren't there. The mechanics that many are suggesting contradict the FAQ, contradict the rules, and substantially change the way the game is played.
It seems to me that most of the confusion that many are suffering stems from the unsupported assumption of a change in game mechanics. If one divorces oneself from those assumptions, and considers only the text of the FAQ, which simply clarifies mechanics for noticing spellcasting that have always existed, most of the problems with invisible spellcasters go away.
In short, the FAQ isn't a rule change. The FAQ is unclear as to how it effects the game mechanics only because it doesn't effect them at all.
But people want some fluff. They want to know how to describe it.
Whether influenced by artwork or not, a lot of the obvious possibilities for fluff should have mechanical consequences.
To have no effect, they have be immediately obvious if you can see the caster and not possible to cover up, but not be any more noticeable in any situation than the caster is - can't be seen from farther away, not visible through cover or concealment (particularly darkness), etc.
Some sort of non-glowing visual effect directly on the caster and their clothing is about the only way I can make that work.
Bandw2 |
Quote:Explaining spell manifestations to a new playerManifestations are a narrative device to limit full casters in social encounters.
"but what ARE they"
a non-explicite thing that does
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
and nothing else.
Squiggit |
The FAQ is not a rules change. it is a clarification of what the RAW text that has existed since 3.0.
That's not entirely true. The 3.5 version of spellcraft specifically states that you need to see verbal or somatic components to identify the spell.
The Pathfinder version of spellcraft omits that requirement, but for some reason a lot of people decided that it was still the rule anyways. So there was an FAQ.
An FAQ that a lot of people are upset over because... reasons. I'm not sure if the people trying to make the FAQ more grandiose than it is are doing so out of a bad faith attempt to discredit the FAQ or because they legitimately don't understand, but literally all it does is justify the ability to use spellcraft against componentless spells, which was already in the rules.
wraithstrike |
In short, the FAQ isn't a rule change. The FAQ is unclear as to how it effects the game mechanics only because it doesn't effect them at all.
It isn't a rules change yet because there is no "this is exactly how it works" language. That is why I worded the comment the way I did.
If they say something like "manifestations appear and give away your location even when invisible" that would be a change.
The question is will they keep the idea that the "something that is noticable" will still be something like your breathing rate changing, or something more like fireworks that shows up even when invisible. The 2nd part is will these fireworks give away your square if they exist.
PS: fireworks is a reference to glyphs or any other "light show".
PS2: I agree that there is no official rules change yet, but I think people are talking about the potential rules change when this is clarified.
wraithstrike |
Ravingdork there is nothing in that FAQ about being able to spellcraft based on manifestations. The FAQ is only for the purpose of noticing a spell taking place. If that is you wish to run the game then just make it a houserule, but there is no real rule for what you proposed.
Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.There was a 3.0 Forgotten Realms specific feat that allowed a caster to customize the observable manifestation of his spells.
The mechanical benefit was an increased difficulty to spellcraft checks to identify the spell.
The non-mechanical benefit: I could define spell manifestations as my character drawing runes of black fire floating in the air as he cast his spell. Pathfinder not having this feat means I don't need to pay a feat tax to assign thematic properties to my spells. The manifestations are always present, but I get to choose how they manifest without paying extra.
Artwork depicting spellcasting as having a visual manifestation has been consistent from present day all the way back to 1st edition.
I think I know the feat because it came up in another discussion. If it is the feat I am thinking of it also does not mention manisfestations, and it has an actual mechanical benefit.
Basically you choose a theme, and spell you cast that you think of a thematically linked visual noticable effect can be affected by the feat.
Basically it was up to the player to come up with something if he cast a spell such as haste which unlike fireball has no automatic visual effect attached to it.
The benefit of the feat was that the ability to spellcraft your spell increased by 4.
It doesn't say that anything about manifestations being there if the spell would not automatically have a known visual effect though.
When I said manifestations were not a thing in 3.X I was saying there was no reference with regard to the general rules for spells having manisfestations.
I was not including the appearance of the fireball in the fireball spell, as a manifestation which this feat from 3.X does.
In Pathfinder the manifestation itself is separate from the fireball itself.
Ravingdork |
wraithstrike wrote:Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
This.
Boomerang Nebula |
This is easy to explain to new players, just refer them to the flashy visual and sound effects wizards create in the movies for what manifestations might look or sound like.
The challenge appears to be convincing veteran players and GMs that are set in their ways that manifestations are a thing. However, all rules are optional, if your table doesn't like manifestations don't use them. I view Pathfinder rules as a toolkit where the GM picks and chooses what rules suit their setting.
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
Slyme wrote:The way the FAQ is worded, and the way most people are reading it...you cannot cast it on someone without them and everyone within range knowing you did it.This is not true. You can't cast a spell without everyone in range knowing that a spell was cast.
I defy you to find wording in the FAQ that localizes the caster.
This long series of discussions comes from the fact that the Still and Silent Metamagics do NOT have any text that states that they have any impact on spellcraft checks to identify spellcasting. that is the RAW.
Now, suggestions have been made to homerule penalties but there has been no RAW change on the mechanics, nor is there likely to be.
The term "manifestations" came up as a fluff explanation to explain the rules mechanics, that's all, the introduction of this term did not change the rules but attempted to provide an explanation for already existant ones.
Squiggit |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.
What's there to prove? How spellcraft works?
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
What the FAQ itself says?
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball.
This all seems pretty straight forward to me, so can you be more specific about which part you're finding objectionable?
PiccoloBard |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the phrase in the description of Spellcraft: "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".
Now, if it had been "…see the spell being cast", there would be no problem: this can be interpreted to mean the *event* of the spell being cast.
But (unfortunately, in my opinion), they said "…see the spell as it is being cast". The "event" interpretation isn't available for this sentence structure: now "as it is being cast" modifies the verb phrase "see the spell". That implies that the spell is something that you can "see"; and if that's so, then a spell is something that you can "see" even if you're not using Spellcraft.
(I think this is a real linguistic contrast: "I saw the note being played" is a way of saying "I saw someone play the note", albeit a slightly awkward one; "I saw the note as it was being played" is nonsense, precisely because the note isn't something you can see.)
I kind of hope that they actually meant "see the spell being cast" and the current wording is the result of a copy-editing error. But the FAQ makes that…unlikely.
I agree with the FAQ author that there has to be a way to stop psychics from walking all over martials in intrigue-type situations, but I'd always pictured the act of noticing that a spell has been cast in your vicinity as more of a "sixth sense" (and one that doesn't give away the caster's square, either). Admittedly, I'd never read the rule carefully until now, and I think the GM who first taught me how to play houseruled it differently.
It would also be nice to get a clarification on the interaction of visual spell manifestations with things like blind(ed)ness, darkvision, etc.
GM Rednal |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to note that they left it open-ended on purpose.
Basically, spells have manifestations... but you can decide for yourself what that manifestation is as long as it meets the mechanical requirement of being something people can notice. As long as people can use Spellcraft to identify it, it's generally not going to be a problem. XD
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.What's there to prove? How spellcraft works?
spellcraft wrote:Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.What the FAQ itself says?
Question wrote:What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell?Answer wrote:Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball.This all seems pretty straight forward to me, so can you be more specific about which part you're finding objectionable?
I saw no proof that noticing equals free spellcraft.
You are assuming that seeing a spell being cast equals see the manifestation.The FAQ exist to prevent casting in plain sight. It never says it counts for spellcraft. It might be the case, but I am saying there is no direct correlation written in specific terms. Since RD plays by RAW inference shouldn't count.
Rednal |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it really doesn't help that there is no precise definition for this. That may be worth adding to the glossary. XD
The best I've got is probably... "Spells that are being cast, but have not had their casting completed, are identifiable by using the Spellcraft skill. Seeing a spell being cast means having line of sight to the caster's location. All spells are identifiable unless the caster is using an ability of some sort that explicitly stops others from being able to identify it. While the nature of what's being identified can vary from caster to caster, the part that Spellcraft is used on is now referred to as the Manifestation."
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:Quote:Explaining spell manifestations to a new playerManifestations are a narrative device to limit full casters in social encounters."but what ARE they"
a non-explicite thing that does
Quote:Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.and nothing else.
quoting for extra redundancy.
why people keep trying to explain what's behind the magic curtain confuses me, it's simply whatever is behind the magic curtain.
Ravingdork |
Squiggit wrote:Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.wraithstrike wrote:Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
You'd have to be pretty obtuse to not make that connection.
There is no point trying to satisfy RD on this one.
This is true. Manifestations are not something I will ever like, and I will fight tooth and nail to see the ruling reversed.
wraithstrike |
Ok, I was being extraordinarily difficult, but I still think that we need an explanation on how they work. Do I need line of sight to the caster? Can the manifestations be audible? As pointed out by myself in another thread, nothing says they have to be visible, and Jason's old post said a change in breathing counts.
Honestly I see this as new rule due to the psychic magic, otherwise the lead developer's original ideas would still apply. However with the FAQ not really defining anything it is legal to have a manifestation that can not be seen(in several ways), and therefore not satisfy spellcraft.
RAW: The FAQ is so wide open that there are ways to get around the intent. There are examples in the other thread so there is no need to repeat them here.
My opinion of what RAI is: The idea is to have a visible element, but I don't think they will let it trump being invisible in any way at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to spellcraft and a player getting a check, much like perception checks to notice things they are pretty much automatic. It's not like looking for a trap, which is something you have to actively do.
Now of course you are free to disagree with the automatic spellcraft check, but I have no problem creating an FAQ for that also.
Snowblind |
...
This is true. Manifestations are not something I will ever like, and I will fight tooth and nail to see the ruling reversed.
That isn't happening. Psychic casting has been printed. A bunch of abilities which assume that spells are visible have been printed. The ship has sailed, and it isn't coming back. Ever.
Squiggit |
I saw no proof that noticing equals free spellcraft.
You are assuming that seeing a spell being cast equals see the manifestation.
The question was what do you use to identify spells. The answer was manifestations. To argue that manifestations are insufficient to identify a spell is literally the exact opposite of what the FAQ says.
That's not the entirety of my argument. Part of it was already explained. He has done nothing to define exactly how manifestations work, which matters. There is also the issue of "seeing a spell" and what thar means.
You don't need to define how manifestations work. Spells have manifestations, which is the answer to the question "What am I identifying when I use spellcraft?" That's it. There doesn't need to be any more because that's the entirety of the subject. You cast a spell. Stuff happens. People can use that stuff to identify the spell you're casting.
Can the manifestations be audible? As pointed out by myself in another thread, nothing says they have to be visible
Spellcraft uses the word see. I literally just quoted that line like twelve posts up.
Bandw2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wraithstrike wrote:
I saw no proof that noticing equals free spellcraft.
You are assuming that seeing a spell being cast equals see the manifestation.The question was what do you use to identify spells. The answer was manifestations. To argue that manifestations are insufficient to identify a spell is literally the exact opposite of what the FAQ says.
wraithstrike wrote:That's not the entirety of my argument. Part of it was already explained. He has done nothing to define exactly how manifestations work, which matters. There is also the issue of "seeing a spell" and what thar means.
You don't need to define how manifestations work. Spells have manifestations, which is the answer to the question "What am I identifying when I use spellcraft?" That's it. There doesn't need to be any more because that's the entirety of the subject.
this is the point, don't look behind the magic curtain, it's simply whatever happens to be behind the magic curtain, that's enough.
if people aren't getting the metaphor.
don't ask what manifestations are.
what do you identify with a spellcraft check, manifestations.
what are manifestations? they're definition is the thing/whatever you identify when using spellcraft.
that's the end of it.
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:Squiggit wrote:Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.wraithstrike wrote:Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".
You'd have to be pretty obtuse to not make that connection.
Per RAW it never says they have to be sight based. I don't think that is the intent to do non-sight based ones as of the FAQ, but the lack of clarification is why I am avoiding this rule until they spell everything out. It's not worth the trouble with a "by the book" person.
Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.
GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.
Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.
------------------------------------------------------------
That is similar to the problem you are having now for enforcing a partially made ruling.
You might want to talk to your group about how to handle rulings with holes in them. That is all of the real advice I can give you.
Sometimes waiting is betting than pushing the new rule on the group immediately.
PiccoloBard |
this is the point, don't look behind the magic curtain, it's simply whatever happens to be behind the magic curtain, that's enough.
if people aren't getting the metaphor.
don't ask what manifestations are.
what do you identify with a spellcraft check, manifestations.
what are manifestations? they're definition is the thing/whatever you identify when using spellcraft.
that's the end of it.
Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: "An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic."
I think that goes double if it's the audience *themselves* who are trying to solve conflict with magic.
Creators of non-interactive media can get away with magic working any which way, but the goal here is to roleplay as characters who actually live in this world of magic. In order to make decisions and solve problems, the players have to be able to know at least something about what the consequences of those decisions might be; otherwise the decisions are totally meaningless.
That's why someone might be further interested in what manifestations actually can and can't do (and why an FAQ about spell-like abilities spawned a thread about invisible casters in the first place).
Chess Pwn |
Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.
Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.
---------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter if the manifestations are a fireworks show or a change of breathing. The rule is, currently, that they are equally visible. That whatever your manifestation is its mechanically equivalent to a different manifestation.
Hence the issue with invisibility and the like because its not exolicitly clear how manifestations act with these rules. And people really like having mechanical issues be constant
wraithstrike |
wraithstrike wrote:
Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.
Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.
---------------------------------------------------------It doesn't matter if the manifestations are a fireworks show or a change of breathing. The rule is, currently, that they are equally visible. That whatever your manifestation is its mechanically equivalent to a different manifestation.
Hence the issue with invisibility and the like because its not exolicitly clear how manifestations act with these rules. And people really like having mechanical issues be constant
You do know that was a hypothetical situation created only to make a point right?
CBDunkerson |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure your player read the CRB? 'cuz, if they did, they missed some things;
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack."
GM Rednal |
As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.
I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I appreciate limits on casters running amok.
I would also like to remind players of the kinds of things GMs like me could do to you if enemy casters were allowed to hide stuff from you as effectively as some of you want to hide stuff from them. o wo Boy, wouldn't it SUCK to charge into a boss fight and get told that invisible casters had secretly stacked a ton of debuffs on you without you noticing?
You mean like the way most people used to play?
Though I don't think the FAQ touches on whether you know you've been hit with debuffs. I suppose it depends on the spell, but most seem like they'd be obvious.
Or were GMs really telling their players "There's someone you can't see casting a spell silently over on the other side of the room."